Research by Brian Wansink, famous for promoting the concept of mindless eating, is coming under close scrutiny.
Photograph: Tim Macpherson/Getty Images/Cultura RF

The head of Cornell University’s Food and Brand lab is facing renewed allegations of academic misconduct, including self-plagiarism and potential data misrepresentation. Professor Brian Wansink, who has authored hundreds of scientific papers and is a former agency director in the US Department of Agriculture, is famous for promoting the concepts of “mindless eating” and the idea that people find it easier to control their food intake when eating from smaller plates. However, an investigation by University of Groningen PhD student Nick Brown has apparently revealed repeated cases of duplicate publication in Wansink’s research, as well as unusual data irregularities across two studies.

In a new investigation published today on his personal blog, Brown now reports multiple cases of apparent duplicate publication: instances where significant amounts of text in Wansink’s articles repeat, virtually verbatim, the text of other articles he authored, without declaring that recycling took place, and despite the articles being listed as independent publications. Undeclared text recycling, also known as self-plagiarism, can be considered academic misconduct when performed on a large scale, and when it includes – as in these cases – text other than the descriptions of research methods.

Brown says he uncovered the cases of duplication while conducting a separate investigation. “When I was writing a previous blog post on a research article from this lab, I went looking for citations of that article, in case a correction had been issued,” he said. “I noticed that Dr. Wansink had cited the article twice, using almost identical words. As I examined the two citing articles more closely, I noticed that quite a lot of the text was duplicated between them.”

As well as reporting several instances of where text was duplicated, Brown also alleges a more serious case that, at a minimum, suggests an exceptional coincidence, but may point to duplicate publication of data, or might also indicate data manipulation. Brown purports to show that two studies published by Wansink in 2001 and 2003 present uncannily similar results, with 39 out of 45 outcomes identical to the decimal point, despite being drawn from different samples. In the 2001 study, Wansink reports recruiting “153 members of the Brand Revitalisation Consumer Panel” while in the second study the reported sample consisted of 654 respondents to a nationwide survey “based on addresses obtained from census records”. How such similar results could emerge from two distinct studies, and two distinct samples, remains unexplained. At the time of publication, Wansink had not responded to requests for comment. A query to the Cornell University Office of Research Integrity and Assurance resulted in a reply from Finn Partners PR Firm, pointing to a statement from Wansink that did not address the most recent allegations.

Unusual similarities
uncovered by Brown between the reported results of two papers, published by Brian Wansink in 2001 (left) and 2003 (right). The highlighted numbers are identical between the two tables, even though the studies were apparently conducted on different samples of people. Composite: Nick Brown

Brown believes the problems he has uncovered warrant further investigation. “What happens next with regard to these publications is up to the publishers and journal editors,” he said. He also argues that Cornell’s Office of Research Integrity and Assurance should encourage the university to release the data sets for the several previous studies where he, van der Zee and Anaya identified numerous statistical inconsistencies, including some results that are mathematically impossible. At the same time, Brown is unmoved by suggestions that he has targeted Wansink unfairly. “All I’ve tried to do here is to bring to light what appear to be facts, supported by evidence that can be quite easily verified by anyone who cares to look”, he said. “I think that’s part of legitimate discussion in science.”

Below is the statement received from Finn Partners PR Firm on 28 February 2017, which was published by Brian Wansink on Cornell University’s website on 13 February 2017:

“Recent questions have arisen regarding statistical methods which I utilize in my research. I, along with my colleagues at Cornell University’s Food and Brand Lab, take these questions very seriously. We are currently conducting a full review of studies in question, preparing comprehensive data which will be shared and establishing new standards for future operations at the lab which will include how we respond to requests for research information. Over the next few months, I will focus on the efforts outlined below and give full attention to this important matter. Once this review is complete, I will share my findings with my peers and the media. In the meantime, we will continue to conduct the research and outreach work that is the signature of Cornell’s Food and Brand Lab.”